Potential Losses to non-OPEC Supply in 2009

From 2003 to 2008 the price of oil advanced from 30.00 to 145.00. During that time non-OPEC production stayed flat, at roughly 40 Mb/day of crude oil only.

Now that oil is either at or below 50.00, it’s time to conjecture how much of this non-OPEC supply would eventually be lost were price to stay at current levels, or go even lower.

First, let’s consider that oil has generally been above 50.00 for four years.  Next, let’s consider that new oil sands and new deepwater oil brought on during that time needed a much higher price to be economic. Also, we should remember that many significant non-OPEC producers started their production declines during this period: The UK, Norway, Mexico and now Russia. Finally, we know that non-OPEC had to work very hard collectively just to make supply stay even for 6 years as the natural decline rate was large. Now that price has fallen so hard, we are seeing both immediate and future supply being taken away. It’s simply not economic to pump alot of new oil at these levels. non-OPEC oil is generally the hard to find, unconventional, high-labor cost, high-tech oil from the West.

My work so far suggests that we are at risk of losing 10% of non-OPEC supply if current prices persist for one year. And, that a good portion of that loss will start to show through by next Summer. I would regard 10% as the worst case, as I already think we are set to lose as much at 5%, based on events already underway.

While previously unthinkable in the current economic environment, the risk that a new price high in oil could occur next year is now back on the table. And I would choose late Q3 2009 as the likliest window for such a price-print to unfold.

-Gregor

  • soparklion
    How long will it take for them to ramp up production again? A month?
  • Crimson Ghost
    These days markets seem to go to greater extremes than ever before.

    The big oil price overshoot to $147 last spring set the stage for the the fall collapse to $46.

    And this fall collapse is, in turn, setting the stage for another massive surge in the not too distant future IMHO.

    I suspect sub $50 oil will prove a very short-lived phenomenon.
  • gregor.us
    There are some saying that the move from 145 to 40 is anomalous. That it's a dislocation. I think it's both a financial market dislocation and also a change in marginal demand. That said, it's scary to think that oil could triple from here in less than 6 months as the various cross-currents of supply and currency movements assert themselves.

    G
  • Bob Dobb
    it's not like the fields are drying up.

    but, if someone ran their company like say countries like Mexico operate their properties, you know, treating their massive incomes for decades like a socialist's piggy bank instead of reinvesting in new production and new technology, their companies fields, as well as future production, would be in the same shape as a Mexico.
  • You're bio on Twitter, is still "the poetry of oil"

    So...which hemisphere is the Capulet? The Montague?

    http://tinyurl.com/55m56c

    http://tinyurl.com/5deryr <- especially the last paragraph...

    Which hemisphere can end their dependence first? That is the buyers, or the sellers? Does it matter? I'm likely not the first to think of the simple Shakespearean parallels. For the illiterate, I’ll spell it out: Romeo couldn't live without her, she couldn't live without him, in the end they both died.

    ...Just thinking outloud
  • gregor.us
    Thankyou. Those are nice insights.

    Here is my solution to your question: Gulf producers should go heavily into wind and especially solar. They should also reveal their reserves to the world. And then there should be a floor price on oil set by the largest producers to ensure that the resource is conserved, as the world migrates to public transport.

    Yes, the world needs to choose the non-theatrical outcome.
blog comments powered by Disqus